A muddle passes for logic on Iraq

Thursday

Sep 27, 2007 at 2:15 AM

Well, we've been had again. "We" meaning the American people, who once again resignedly bow to the Bush administration's "logic," taken in once again by what seems sensible coming out of the mouth of a persuasive Gen. David Petraeus. So, what's another $50 billion? Another 1,000 American lives lost? Another 20,000 Iraqi lives lost? We're making slow progress, we're told. Maybe we can even "win." We need to give the Iraqis time to get their political act in order. That's why we need "the surge." That's the "logic" we are sold.

ROBERT P. PEARSON

Well, we've been had again. "We" meaning the American people, who once again resignedly bow to the Bush administration's "logic," taken in once again by what seems sensible coming out of the mouth of a persuasive Gen. David Petraeus. So, what's another $50 billion? Another 1,000 American lives lost? Another 20,000 Iraqi lives lost? We're making slow progress, we're told. Maybe we can even "win." We need to give the Iraqis time to get their political act in order. That's why we need "the surge." That's the "logic" we are sold.

But it's all double talk. Even Petaeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker admit that there was virtually no political progress either before or during the surge, and everyone, for at least the past couple of years, has admitted that there is no winning in Iraq by military force alone. Everyone agrees the name of the game is political progress. That is what the "benchmarks" are for: to measure political progress. But is something missing in this "logic"? Could there be a reason we are not allowing ourselves to see for the lack of political progress?

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is often portrayed as weak and incompetent. It is assumed that is why there is no political progress, no progress toward our benchmarks. Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps al-Maliki is not incompetent, but is in reality competently pursuing his own benchmarks while playing us along? Is it not possible, even probable, that he has no interest in a democracy in Iraq, but is doing everything he can to prepare the ground for a Shia-dominant Iraq after we leave, a Shia-dominant Iraq that controls the lion's share of Iraq's military and economic resources? What makes us think that he, or any other Iraqi leader, for that matter, has any interest in sharing power and resources with Iraqis outside their tribe and/or religious group?

We can stay in Iraq for another 10 years and there never will be any political progress. We Americans have been, and continue to be, almost completely blind and naive about whose benchmarks the Iraqis are aiming to achieve. The primary goals of almost all Iraqis are that (1) the Americans leave as soon as possible, and (2) their group attain its private goals once we leave, goals that have nothing to do with democracy, the safety of Israel, the continuous flow of oil to America, or any other of the goals we have for them. Virtually no Iraqi would put abstractions like democracy or a nation-state above the interests of his ethnic or religious group.

There is perhaps one goal all Iraqi groups do share with us, and paradoxically it is the one goal we advertise as being ours alone, and that is preventing al-Qaida from using Iraq as an operational base after we leave. But no Iraqi wants to turn over any part of Iraq to al-Qaida! Until now, the Sunnis have made temporary alliances with al-Qaida in order to force us out and maintain their power vis-à-vis the Shiites. But this has always been a temporary alliance for short-term purposes. As soon as we leave, and even now it is beginning to happen, the Sunnis will turn on al-Qaida and send them packing. They are easily spotted, as they speak with an accent, and they promote an agenda with no long-term value to the Sunnis.

Finally, the Bush administration has spun the idea that if we leave, the Iranians will move in. Nothing in Iraqi history suggests this. The Iraqis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persians, and they have been at war for most of the past 2,000 years, most recently in an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq from 1980-88. What the Shiites in Iraq want is to replace the Sunnis as top dog; they have no desire to turn over any newly gained power to the Iranians.

A lot of muddled thinking is being promoted as wisdom regarding Iraq. The bottom line is, we should get out as soon as possible. There is no way we will meet our goals there, for no one in Iraq really cares about our goals. What results won't be the state we foolishly envisioned when we invaded, but that was never in the cards. When we leave we can focus on the real culprits of 9/11 and the Iraqis can begin the process of solving their own problems in their own way.

Robert P. Pearson lives in Wellfleet.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.